Madeleine McCann At The Leveson Inquiry: The Free Speech Debate
MADELEINE McCann: Kate and Gerry McCann has been addressing the Leveson Inquiry into media standards.
It’s front page news:
Front pages:
“Days of dignity for the McCanns”- Telegraph
“Lives are being harmed by these stories, says McCanns” – Guardian
“I was violated by the press says Kate McCann”- Times
“Tortured by the tabloids”- Indy
Kate McCann says he felt “totally violated” when the News of the World published excerpts from a private diary.
Madeleine McCann went missing on May 3, 2007. He case continues to make headline news.
Gerry McCann also spoke. He noted how the coverage turned from helpful to their search for their daughter to being negative against them.
The media coverage was all about watching the parents.
And, then, as Mr McCann says, the Portuguese police were made arguidos, a words that now needs no translation. The media feeding frenzy had flesh and bone to take hold of.
“We were being tried by the media and unable to defend ourselves.”
Kate McCann recalls that on Sunday 14 September 2008, a friend texted her the news:
“Saw your diary in the newspapers, heartbreaking. I hope you’re all right.”
Portuguese police seized the diary in August 2007.
Someone got hold of it and copied it. They then gave it to the News of The World, which published extracts from it. Who? Why? Where? How?
Once more the paper and the police were tight.
Says Kate McCann:
“I felt totally violated. I had written these words at the most desperate time of my life, and it was my only way of communicating with Madeleine. There was absolutely no respect shown for me as a grieving mother or a human being or to my daughter. It made me feel very vulnerable and small, and I just couldn’t believe it. It didn’t stop there. It’s not just a one-day thing. The whole week was incredibly traumatic and every time I thought about it, I just couldn’t believe the injustice.”
Adding:
“I just recently read through my diary entries at that point in that week, and I talk about climbing into a hole and not coming out because I just felt so worthless that we had been treated like that.”
How did Daniel Sanderson get the words from Kate McCann’s diaries?
Gerry McCann adds that the media pursued them. Back in Rothley, Leicestershire, the media hunted in a pack:
“We were hemmed in the house for a couple of days before the police moved them to the end of our drive.”
Says Kate McCann:
“They would often wait for Gerry to go and would know I would have to come out the house at some point with the children.”
Photographers would take aim.
“(Madeleine’s younger sister) Amelie said to me several times ’Mummy, I’m scared’.”
Of the libellous stories, Mrs McCann said:
“We wanted to shout out ’It’s not true’, but when it’s your voice against a powerful media, there’s no point.”
The media wrong them. The McCanns sued Express Newspapers. And won.
Why? Says Kate McCann:
“…we felt it was our only course of action open to us at that point that would stop it”.
When confronted, she says Express Newspapers suggested the parents gave an interview to the news group’s OK! Magazine.
He added:
“With hindsight, I wish we had taken action earlier…. I have seen no individual journalist or editor brought to account over the stories.”
Indeed. Lori Campbell, for example, is still employed in the national press.
“I think if there are repeat offenders they should lose their privilege to practise as a journalist.”
Should journalist be struck off a list like, say, doctors?
“I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but when you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account.”
Goncalo Amaral may snort with derision at those words – the former Portuguese policeman argued for freedom of speech in his defence against the McCanns.
But what has been achieved by so much reporting?
The child is missing. Still missing. There are no suspects. Indeed, police have yet to prove what crime occurred, if any.
Madeleine McCann: BBC, Mirror And Sun Lied Over Goncalo Amaral And Still Fail To Apologise
Madeleine McCann: Facing Facts With Lee Rainbow
Posted: 24th, November 2011 | In: Key Posts, Madeleine McCann Comments (24) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
November 25th, 2011 at 11:07 am
I don’t suppose banging on about another news site’s comment section helped much
Moderator- http://www.anorak.co.uk/302866/madeleine-mccann/does-kate-mccann-makes-us-feel-a-bit-sorry-for-the-news-international-at-the-leveson-inquiry.html/
November 25th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Yes I’ve seen worse, far worse…. Maybe Anorak was anticipating it escalating? to be fair that often happens once posters get into the swing of having a bit of a rant…..
Moderator- there was one post which was extremely libellous and also not the poster’s own opinion, he was warned not to post again in a similar, but he did.
November 25th, 2011 at 10:14 am
I don’t know C&C – I must have missed something because I didn’t notice anything libelous. It must have been removed before I read it.
November 25th, 2011 at 9:53 am
Tut, just as it was getting lively. Was it for crimes against the exclamation mark?
November 24th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Some of these comments look a bit random now
Moderator – sadly so, but better than in the High Court defending ourselves
November 24th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
I thought Kate McCann’s book was very interesting and enlightening, and it had brilliant sales. Not as good as JKR’s but then no-one can match her sales.
November 24th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
There are no free speech rights in the UK. Home of the official secrets act and the secret official secrets act, judicial gagging orders and D notices.
.
There are, however, very strong laws regarding libel.
.
November 24th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
JKRowling did well at the inquiry.
November 24th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Nope… no personal insult that I can see…
November 24th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Sgt Rock
You might find it interesting , but if memory serves me well Anorak does not welcome second hand opinions or other peoples blogs being promoted
November 24th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
‘Kate did avert her eyes a fair number of times though ‘
Well that’s me sold on her guilt. Though what she’s supposed to be guilty of (beyond leaving children alone) is beyond me. However, yes – you are right. Darting eyes is a clear indication of guilt. Lombroso said so back in the nineteenth century.
November 24th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
someone commenting on someone’s blog is just that, their own comment. And inaccurate at that….
November 24th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Oops – that should read “accept responsibility for…” – sorry.
November 24th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
He might well have done and that was a judgment call on his part, but there was equally no necessity to accept that advice – however, having done that, there should be no surprise that this would be perceived as, at best, an indication of something to hide, or, at worst, an indication of guilt. It also reflects a continuing refusal to accept the consequences of one’s acts and personal choices, which goes to the heart of this matter – as for my wife, she always gets the first punch in, so I never get the chance.
November 24th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Vimes: Did Kate McCanns solicitor advise her to not answer those questions? And have you stopped beating your wife yet?
November 24th, 2011 at 10:17 am
I’d agree with that – heat and kitchens spring to mind. But, when I hear someone, who refused to answer questions put to her during an official police interview, then complaining about others “hindering the search for their daughter”, that takes hypocrisy to new levels – it cuts both ways.
November 24th, 2011 at 10:08 am
I am not on facebook and I don’t frequent sites that are full of scary nutters. It’s bad enough sometimes here!
We are all probably guilty here of the tabloid offence of not fully understanding that there is a person on the end of our keyboard rage. A person that can be harmed.
November 24th, 2011 at 10:02 am
…. clicked too soon….
Either pure poison or saccharine sweet on some of these threads. Madness.
November 24th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Yes Karen. I never bother to comment on any of those threads and pages… just not worth the hassle as no-one is interested in any other point of view. My name still crops up as being related to the McCanns
It seems there’s no middle ground for it.
The McCanns really got caught in the ‘access to the internet from home’ explosion… IMO a couple of years either side and the furore wouldn’t have happened.
November 24th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Emma, you should be able to say these things but go over to Twitter, any of the Facebook pages or any of the newspapers’ comments sections and try criticising the McCanns’ behaviour. You’ll get pounced on, which I’m sure someone like you can handle fine, but many others are too scared to give their opinions because of the bullying that goes on.
November 24th, 2011 at 9:23 am
It is percy – which is why I said they should have been ‘facing’ prison. And those stories weren’t just ‘speculative’.
Vimes you have a point. One of my bugbears is this mentality that we can’t criticise anything a ‘victim’ says – that their word has got to be taken as the absolute authority. I think this has led to a situation where we have a blind adherance to a criminal justice policy which just doesn’t work. Punishment over cutting crime, basically. But again, I’d argue there’s a point at which we still have to draw the line.
I don’t agree with Jo Yeates’s parents when they say they wish the death penalty was available. I agree I should be allowed to say it without being castigated as having ‘no respect’ for the victims. I should be allowed to say the McCanns were wrong in their actions that night without being called ‘heartless’.
That said, we really need to look carefully about how ‘free’ we want our speech to be.
November 24th, 2011 at 9:04 am
…prisons a bit harsh don’t you think, Emma?….besides they are all full….or maybe you think a new prison should be built just to house the press for publishing speculative stories…or for parents that go out on the piss leaving their babies home alone…?….if so …I suggest the press & parents share the same one to save space…
November 24th, 2011 at 8:59 am
But no mention of the 2 hours prime-time television given to them by the BBC and Channel 4, to promote their own, unchallenged version of events, or their much-trumpeted appearance on Oprah, or the unthreatening appearances on daytime TV with Lorraine & co., or the similarly unchallenging Mothers’ Day radio interview with Aled Jones (do we see a pattern developing, yet?), or the sight of Jeremy Paxman being muzzled on Newsnight, or the readiness to accept NI’s cash for exclusive serialisation rights, or the willingness of BBC East Midlands to allow a manufactured, false report to be broadcast, or any reference to the countless, unquestioning, sycophantic articles in the press from Clarence Mitchell’s little coterie of tame journos? It’s one thing to question press ethics, when necessary, but to do so in such a blatantly one-sided manner fair gives one the boak, so it does – careful what you wish for.
November 24th, 2011 at 8:53 am
It is perfectly legitimate to say the McCanns shouldn’t have left young children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country.
However, how this becomes ‘McCanns sold Maddie for money’ (or whatever The Star is supposed to have said is beyond me. Free speech is not unrestricted speech. We are a ‘free’ country but we don’t have freedom to do whatever we like with no limits.
There is a line to be drawn and here it was crossed – diabolically (I didn’t even know about The Star’s story until yesterday. It is beyond me how someone could have thought it was perfectly OK to print). Perhaps there needs to be a resurrected offence of criminal libel for such reports owing to the harm they cause. I don’t think it hysterical to feel that someone should have been facing prison for that article.